Subject: Re: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: Mueller <mueller4@sonic.net>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 01:06:54

At 12:38 AM 9/13/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 09:27 PM 9/12/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Tom, I ask of you this: I will present a step by step explicit logic
>>>structure which shows that I was within my right with my decree. I don't
>>>want any speech and debate tricks, I want simple, straight out answers and
>>>explinations as to why any one step isn't legal. If you can't find a
>>>striaghtforward reason why, then it would suggest that I am not wrong. My
>>>interpretation is as legal as yours. But, as I say later, is one man's
>>>legal interpretation, backed up by logic, any better than the next man's
>>>logical interpretation?
>>>
>>>
>>>*****
>>>
>>>(1) By law 115, since I may do ANYTHING, not "prohibited or regulated by
>>>LAW" (not actions, law!!), I may declare my free will as I had done
>>>earlier, and that no one can ever trample on it in any way (to put it in
>>>normal words as opposed to legalese). If you don't agree with me here,
>>>point out the law which explicitly, or implicitly states otherwise. I
>>>want a law, not an action. If you can't do this, go to step 2.
>>
>>It is the interpretation of this law which is our major difference. To make
>>sure that we are at least closer to resolution I will not explain myself,
>>but instead try to find out what you think about the first step in my
>>explanation.
>>
>>Imagine two cases, in case 1 law 115 reads thusly:
>>"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
>>unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the laws, which is
>>permitted only when a law or set of laws explicitly or
>>implicitly permits it."
>>
>>and in case 2 the law reads:
>>"Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
>>unregulated, EXCEPT DOING ANYTHING WHICH LIMITS THE RANGE OF ANOTHER
>>CITIZEN, OR changing the laws which is permitted only when a law or set of
>>laws explicitly or implicitly permits it."
>>
>>What is the difference between case 1 and case 2?
>>
>>Tom
>>
>
>I see where you are coming from. And case 2 does make it so that you
>can't regulate what others think or do. And I agree, that by case 1, you
>do have power to limit us. I never was arguing that. I have always
>agreed that you have he power to limit someone. However, because of the
>way things are worded (specifically working with 101 and 115), it makes an
>equally fair (or should I use legal) interpretation that I have the
>contradictory power to deny your alagations. No I realize how you are
>reasoning that I can't. you are saying that since you did yours first,
>that, essentialy, by a cause and effect (yes, my term, but at the heart,
>it is the essence of your argument), I can't make mine. That is where I
>disagree. Since there is no regualtion, in the laws, as to the order in
>which to handle actions

Am I correct in summarizing:

1 By examination of the two cases, it can be seen that the LAW 115 grants
authority to citizens to do things even to the extent that they regulate
and prohibit.

2 You hold that in further and subsequent actions things can happen by 115
which deny these texts.

3 The second logical step is permissible because no system of precedence IN
THE LAWS THEMSLEVES indicates that one 115 action has authority over
another. And this leads to contradiction.

? (see above, this was a question)

If yes, then I refer you back to step one. Included in the various
regulations was a system of precedence which showed that
the statement "a retroactive action is JUST as legal" is in fact not true.
If you examine MMM (I've got his current text at
http://www.sonic.net/~mueller4/tom/nomic/thingies.html ) you'll see that
except in very strict cases he vetos retroactive actions. The only thing
not vetoed is the retroactive action which created the whole thingie,
action scheme itself (the Definosaur).

....

The more I think about this the worse I like it. I'm beginning to think
we're both wrong because we bring to many assumptions to the game. For
example, the assumtion that Laws are the highest form of authority. We're
not prohibited from creating "SKOOBAs" which act like laws but are
stronger, why don't we do so?

>I never
>once claimed your interpretation wrong. And I understand (I think) what
>you are telling me. However, I am merely coming up with an alternate,
>legal, and logically derived interpretation that contradicts yours.
>Therefore, we are both just as right, but in our own legal, and logical
>way. It would seem to me, that, if we aren't nearing an out of court, I'm
>going to have, as implied by 212, an automatic invoking of the courts on
>this issue. Unless you object, that would make you the plaintiff, and me
>the defendent. Whomever is Judge will not be one of us. Sound fair?

We could do that, sure. But my growing sense of disillusionment makes me
think that even this can't fix the problems being identified. The rule
that produces RFJs is even lower than 115 and mutable to boot. It seems
that for once we've got a clear precendence scheme that allows the (in your
interpretation) totally anarchic 115 actions to make mince meat of RFJs.


Uggg... (why didn't you just let me be dictator and fix this stuff?)

Tom